Yeah. Me and and Colin Craig: we're not going to surprise you with our views on gay marriage.

I honestly think this is going to be a bit less shitty than Civil Unions, just as Civil Unions was a bit less shitty than Homosexual Law Reform. The tide of public opinion has turned, and most politicians recognise that. Yes, we're going to cop some abuse as hardened bigots panic at the realisation that their world is coming apart in a sea of general tolerance and not seeing what all the fuss is about. We need to take care of each other in the face of the verbal and sometimes physical violence their terror is going to engender.

But if you've seen this, or read the quotes, you might realise, as I have, what we're mostly going to see this time around: barefaced weaselling. Stand up Brendan Horan and Tony Ryall: you're distinguished by now being less deserving of my respect than Richard Prosser.

With all the desperate squirmy fourth-form "can't remember how I feel about a major social issue" bullshit going on, I can see how it might be hard to work out how individual MPs really feel. Luckily, we live in the internet age, and there are tools available to help.

Marriage Equality has a list of MPs and their stated positions on same-sex marriage. The numbers at the top show you how close we are to tipping this, and how many MPs are strangely undeclared still. In my native electorate, the choice between Ruth Dyson (pro) and David Carter (still banging the rocks together) is pretty stark. Right now, though, I'm living in Christchurch Central, and Nicky Wagner is down as "unknown". So I'll be writing her a letter and asking. And when I have an answer, I'll tell Marriage Equality so they can update their list.

If an MP's been around for a while, you could also use this site to correlate their votes on Civil Unions and the Marriage (Gender Clarification) bills, which should give you their attitude to marriage equality. Oh look, there's Nicky Wagner. Goodness.

It may be, though, that when you go to the effort of asking, all you get back is purest weasel. So I've provided a little Weasel to English translation below.

"In the big picture, it's not that important... We've been focused on the broader economy."

- "I can do maths. This is going to pass without me. If I oppose it (because, EW), I'll look like a dick for nothing. But also, I can do maths. By the time this becomes law, I'll have retired to the place on Maui.

"I will canvass the views of my constituents."

- "I have no conscience of my own, so I'll be borrowing someone else's."

"I'm too busy solving Treaty grievances."

- "Get back to me in another hundred and sixty years."

"I think marriage is a heterosexual institution."

- "And that big yellow thing... that's a bus, right?"

"I'm not taking a position at this stage."

- "Someone will tell me what to do."

*fleeing in the face of the question "Do you support gay marriage or not?"*

- "I'm not going to lie to your face. Bye."

Please feel to contribute your own translations, or Weasel for translation, in the comments.

Twitter is great for this. I've been chasing Richard Prosser around the room for most of the morning. Marriage pre-date religion he says. Great, so what basis for it to be hetero then? Human pair bonding goes back a long time, apparently, and/or I'm just representing the views of ordinary conservatives. So you don't agree with them, and if so, on what basis? etc etc.

Also, he agrees (with Colin Craig, interestingly), that the state has no place to regulate personal affairs, or as Craig says "no place in the bedroom". On this we agree, except I think they both miss the irony of their position.

Well, we certainly all need to see 3 News’ bonus footage of government ministers squirming and running away in response to straightforward questions about their views on “gay marriage”.

Which struck me as bizarre when “We’re going to be discussing that in caucus next week, and I’ll talk to you afterwards” is a reasonable – if infuriatingly commonplace – response to those awkward stand-ups. And you know what, I might snerk you without mercy but you really need to harden the fuck up and take it. You're a politician -- odds are at least half the population at any given moment is going to think you're the anti-Christ.

On this we agree, except I think they both miss the irony of their position.

Not only the irony but the spectacular circle-jerky intellectual dishonesty of it. I've been working on a post of my own on that, but keep finding that typing "fuck you" several hundred times, while relaxing, isn't exactly adding value to public discourse.

"We're going to be discussing that in caucus next week, and I'll talk to you afterwards" is a reasonable -- if infuriatingly commonplace -- response

I will respectfully disagree that this is any kind of actual answer to the question "What's your view..." We know what Brendan Horan's view is. He knows we know what his view is. Not stopping smirking for long enough to be up-front about it is... something I feel okay using as the basis for a personal judgement.

You won't find a Marilyn Waring in this bunch of Nats. They've been whipped and groupthinked into bloc voting on all conscience issues; booze, gay marriage, medical cannabis. Considering they all owe their jobs to John Key's anti-political lead, you'll be hard pressed to find an honest conscience around the cabinet table.

I will respectfully disagree that this is any kind of actual answer to the question “What’s your view…”

I'll equally respectfully suggest you're disagreeing with something I've not actually said, Would I be getting fitted for new squee-pants if the National caucus came out en masse for marriage equality? Too fucking right, but if they're not trotting out the Romney-esque dog-fucker analogies either? Well, I'll take what I've got and work with it.

(BTW, I'd note making the right noises at this stage doesn't make anyone a reliable ally - or a certain foe - either. I'd suggest you take a look at the four New York GOP state senators who crossed the floor to secure passage of their marriage equality bill. Until the last moment they were so firmly on the fence the lobbying from all sides was going on almost literally until the last moment.)

Sorry, gods, I've put that badly. I'm disagreeing not with you, but with that underlying proposition with which I think we are both disagreeing. Because as Russell has said, the squirming on this is quite incredible. Why are they so desperately uncomfortable? Why this level of weasel? Why is John Banks still officially on the "undecided" list?

I couldn't think how else to put that. I mean, Banks has never made any secret of his feelings, but "officially", there's nothing on record about how he's going to vote. Marriage Equality is privately run, yes, but they're only recording actual statements. It's... an unofficial representation of the official record?

It is frustrating, but I suspect everyone has been told to STFU ahead of the caucus discussion which (IIRC) is going to happen early next week. (I've certainly done my time in the collective responsibility trenches on a less exalted level when I was in the Young Nats. Let's just say I wasn't on the winning side of every policy debate, and have the scar tissue on my inside bottom lip to prove it.)

My National Party gossip isn’t as 110-proof as it used to be but I’m hearing it’s going to be lively.

God knows my appointment with Maggie Barry should be interesting – being agreeable for more than ten minutes in a row makes my knuckles itch.

Thanks for your email. I have a pretty commonsense attitude to these issues. I absolutely support gay civil unions but I am aware that some people feel that marriage is between a man and a woman and I try to respect their feelings as well. Re gay adoption. I do not believe that sexual orientation should be the main denominator in these decisions. Choosing adoptive parents is a very important and multi-faceted decision. Each individual case should be weighed up on its own merits.

I have written asking her to clarify what 'respect their opinions' means in terms of how would she vote if a gay marriage vote came along. I wrote once in July last year, twice in May this year, and once more (about to be twice) in July this year. No response. No surprise.

am filled with hope, as yet unrequited, that Act On Campus will bring their MP to his senses.

I've certainly been proud of the Young Nats recently, though with a certain amount of melancholy reflection on how damn unpleasant it was banging my head against the brick wall of the 'senior party' back in the day. Oh well, sometimes the kids do you proud. :)